Karnataka High Court
Shanthamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7827 OF 2022
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7885 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1 . SHANTHAMMA
W/O LATE MOHAN RAJU
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
2 . V SHASHIKALA
D/O LATE MOHAN RAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
3 . M RAJASHEKAR RAJU
S/O LATE MOHAN RAJU
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
4 . M CHANDRASHEKAR RAJU
S/O LATE MOHAN RAJU
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.15 NEAR SUNRISE
ENGLISH SCHOOL ROAD
MOHAN RAJU LAYOUT
DODDAKRISHNAPPA LAYOUT
BHOOPASANDRA
BENGALURU -560094
... COMMON
PETITIONERS
(BY SRI CHIDANANDA SWAMY B.A., ADVOCATE)
2
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YALAHANKA POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU -560001 ... COMMON
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP)
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CR.NO.202/2022 AND CR.NO.201/2022
RESPECTIVELY OF YELAHANKA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420,465,468,471
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Crl.P.No.7885/2022 and Crl.P.No.7827/2022 are filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime Nos.201/2022 and 202/2022 respectively, registered by Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC.
3
2. Both the petitions are taken up together as it belongs to the same petitioners/accused persons and the offence.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State.
4. The case of the prosecution is that in both the cases filed by one Nazeer Ahamad Nadaf the Sub- Registrar of Yelahanka who filed complaint to police on 18.07.2022 alleging that in Crime No.202/2022, the accused said to have filed a fake Khatha certificate and got registered the document in respect of a sale deed of Site No.65 situated at Chikkabettahalli Village, Yelanhanka Hobli, in BBMP Khata No.20/65 measuring East to West - 70 feet and North to South - 40 feet, totally 2800 sq.ft. One Geetha Lakshi obtained the Khata information from RTI and found that there is no 4 such khata certified by BBMP, therefore filed complaint to the police.
5. In another case Crime No.201/22 the same allegation was made against these petitioners that by producing fake khatha they said to have sold the site No.136, Survey No.20 and Katha No.20/136 in the same Chikabettahalli Village, Yelahanka village to the 3rd persons, even though one Kumari and Geetha Lakshi are owners of the said property. After registering the case, the police are making hectic effort to arrest these petitioners, in both the cases. The petitioners approached Session Judge for anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected, hence they are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that all the documents are registered document and the petitioners are legal heirs of original owner and 5 they are said to have sold the property for valuable considering under registered sale deed and civil case is already filed and pending. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions. Hence, prayed for granting the bail petition.
7. Per contra learned HCGP objected the petition and contended that the land in Site No.65 and 136 in Sy.No.20, Khatha Nos.20/136 and 20/65 was already purchased by Abdul Karreem and he said to have executed sale deed in 1988 by giving confirmation deed in favour of Abdul Karreem and on the basis GPA, the said property said to have sold to Nagappa Shetty inturn to obtain conversion order, formed layout and sold the property. Inspite of the same again, one Mohan Raju, the husband of petitioner No.1 said to have created sale deed by purchase of 3 acres of land from the said LRs of Abdul Kareem and the same said to have sold by this petitioner based 6 upon the fake GPA. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, of course petitioners said to be LRs of Mohan Ram who said to have purchased land under the sale deed in the year 1996 based upon the sale deed these petitioners sold the site to various persons without having the knowledge about the earlier sale deed executed by the Reddappa.
8. Though Geetha Lakshi and others were said to have purchased property from Reddappa Shetty, the GPA holder of Abdul, but there were sale deeds in favour of the said Geetha lakshmi and Kumari and they also filed suit and is pending in Civil Court. The Investigating Officer required to investigate the matter whether Abdul Kareem really executed the GPA in favour of Reddappa Shetty in turn he has obtained the conversion order and sold the property. Once the order of conversion is passed, layout is formed, 7 question of selling agriculture land to the Mohan does not arise. Therefore, matter requires detailed investigation. Though learned HCGP submits there were 8 other cases registered against this petitioner, pending in similar sale deed executed by the petitioner by creating fake khatha. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view by keeping petitioner for custodial interrogation does not serve purpose and said petitioners said to have acted under the sale deed purchased by one Mohan husband of petitioner NO.1, therefore I am of view, by imposing certain conditions if the bail is granted, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the following, ORDER Accordingly, both the Criminal petitions are allowed.
8
The respondent/Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime Nos.201/2022 and 202/2022 respectively, registered by Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) each separately for both the cases, with two sureties each, for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
(ii) Petitioners shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;
(iii) Petitioners shall not directly or
indirectly tamper with any of the
prosecution witnesses;
9
(iv) Petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences;
(v) Petitioners shall be deemed custody for
the purpose of any recovery under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and
(vi) Petitioners shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer between 10.00 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on every Monday for a period of three months or till filing of charge-sheet whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV